[Jazuela]

I guess I didn't see it at all like what you described, Molly. Not some exclusive site - what would be the point in that? I saw it outlined something like this:

At the top of the page in readable, but not blaring font:

(Name of Newly formed organization of contributors) Presents:

(Some kind of catchy title in blaring font to draw attention to potential mudders)

(Text extolling the virtues of muds, and of the mudding community)

(A graphic or two, maybe a paste of a generic room in some nonexistent mud to show potential mudders what a mud looks like)

At the bottom of the page:

Sponsored in part by the generous contributions from:

(Name of Mud, hyperlink to the mud's website
Name of Mud, hyperlink to the mud's website
Name of Mud, hyperlink to the mud's website)

through the benevolent auspices of (name of newly formed organization)

End

Kinda standard operations for almost any group advertising venture in the USA, in any case.

[Molly]

Well, you may have seen it that way, Jazuela, but I don't think that is quite what the_logos had in mind. In fact I distinctly remember statements of his like:

"Yeah, this is going to take some time to work out in terms of what the arrangements would be. I totally understand that MUDs being run as hobbys are not likely to have owners willing to contribute a lot (or any) money. The trick here is that I really do want to show the outside gaming world that text MUDs generally can offer a lot of great things, but I don't want to do it enough to essentially pay a lot to promote other people's MUDs. "

This suggests something quite different to me than what you seem to picture. I don't see how the rest of the Mud Community, beyond the few Muds that contributed monetary to that site, would benefit from it at all. And I doubt that any of the ones that did contribute a bit with constructive input on the thread would have been mentioned on that site either. That's what I meant by 'exclusive' site.

But of course the entire question is moot now, since the project is dropped anyhow.

[Dulan]

Just a quick question, Achaea.

What part of that statement was so insulting to you?

Saying to someone to not take anything you say personally?

Or to not get insulted by what you say?

Originally Posted by (Traithe @ Nov. 25 2004) I told myself I was going to bite my tongue, but man... Tyche, what's your deal? I've always enjoyed reading your posts on the various MU*-related forums I visit, but I think you're a little off-kilter here.

You can stuff the pop psychology, I'm not interested in it as it says nothing about morality.  I could show it's human nature to kill...end of story.  No, morality is governed by both action and intention, not just one or the other at your pleasure.  If what Brody claim was true, "it is not immoral" then no one would be offended or uncomfortable with the ideas and questions I asked.  Ah but things are apparently different.  99% of the donors to charities do not receive any compensation whatsoever and give in return for nothing.  I decided to loose my tongue when I read about using sick kids as a "guerilla" marketing opportunity on page 4 if your interested in the forensics of rants.  Considering the nonstop self promotion, preening, chest puffing and tone deaf corporate ear and history of the source well... let's just say it doesn't take a genious to make a judgement.  Most people I know believe that giving to charity for altruistic reasons is noble and virtuous, but for reasons of self-promotion and profit, or pride and selfishness, to be ignoble and not virtuous.  That is my moral position and I state it with certainty, and "by the same right" as those who state otherwise yet ask, by what right do I?  

P.S. To marketing, my particular view on these issues is not an aberrant blip in your data.  Have Smithers check your premises Mr. Burns.

P.P.S. To anyone who may be confused, yes, my prior posts were lampooning, dark sarcasm, whatever term you prefer.

[John]

Why don't you go ask the kids who benefit from it before condemning this as an immoral act. Hmmm?

[Molly]

A word of caution, Tyche:
Irony is usually a dangerous weapon, because there will always be some people around who do not detect the irony, and consequently will take everything you say literally. Also there are some subjects that are just too sensitive to make fun of. Cancer-sick Children is one of those. Starving people in Africa is another. I’m afraid that your posts will offend a lot of folks, and probably not the ones you were targeting in the first place either.

This is not meant as a flame, however. I do get the point that you are trying to convey, and I also agree with most of it. People crowing about their charity on Discussion boards, while at the same time counting new hits on their webpages, do turn me off a bit too. I do not particularly cherish people goading others to go and do the same either.

Sure it’s a good thing that some of the money for the publicity goes to some deserving purpose. Still, as Tyche already pointed out, most of us give to some kind of charity. But most of us like to choose what kind of charity we give to on our own. And most of us do not brandish our ‘unselfishness’ publicly on Discussion boards. Doing so actually reminds me a bit of that old story about Jesus Christ and the Pharisees.

Originally Posted by I’m afraid that your posts will offend a lot of folks,and probably not the ones you were targeting in the first place either.

True.

Originally Posted by Sure it’s a good thing that some of the money for the publicity goes to some deserving purpose. Still, as Tyche already pointed out, most of us give to some kind of charity. But most of us like to choose what kind of charity we give to on our own. And most of us do not brandish our ‘unselfishness’ publicly on Discussion boards. Doing so actually reminds me a bit of that old story about Jesus Christ and the Pharisees.

Reminds me of the ancient parable of the Diku license.  You can accept donations, but if there's any in-game benefits you are in violation of the license.   What's the Diku group's definition of charity?  Is that not the spirit of the license?  I don't know but I strongly suspect the POV is the similar to mine.  My opinion of the "business of charity" is that it ain't.

Originally Posted by (John @ Nov. 26 2004,01:59) Why don't you go ask the kids who benefit from it before condemning this as an immoral act. Hmmm?

I do a lot of charity work with runaway teenage girls.  I help them out by giving them money and they sleep with me.  It's very noble and virtuous work.  If you have a problems with me promoting this charitable work go ask them before condemning it.  'kay?

BTW, The above isn't true.  I expect you to consider my intent.  It's not noble.

[John]

Originally Posted by (Tyche @ Nov. 26 2004,09:40) I expect you to consider my intent. It's not noble.

Your ignoring my point. My point wasn't "ignore the intent" it was "yes, they're doing this for advertising. But really, it isn't that bad." Maybe in your world perving on teenagers and getting publicity are comparable acts, but in mine they're worlds apart.

An example of someone emotionally invested in a charity not giving a rats toss is in the television show, The Apprentice. In it two groups have to do tasks, one task was to sell a product. One team said "why don't we give to a charity. People are much more willing to buy our product that way.." I believe the person who suggested it was someone who had lost his brother to lukemia. He definitely suggested donating to a lukemia fund. My family's reaction to that was "hey, that's a good idea" and then when they DID donate a good amount as opposed to $100 we were like "hey, aren't these guys great?"

We knew they were doing it to win the task, we accepted that from the get go. And we saw nothing wrong with that. No-one in the show saw anything wrong with it (that they said anyway). If someone who had lost their brother to lukemia didn't mind donating the money to a lukemia charity, I don't think it's a terrible at all.

Businesses donating to charities I believe do so for the benefits most of the time. I don't see anything morally wrong with it, and I'm amazed that some people do.

Then again, I can't help but wonder. What would the reaction had been to this had the_logos not been connected. Call me cynical, but I doubt it would have been like this.

[Jazuela]

Once upon a time, Jazuela worked for a big dairy company on the east coast of the USA. She was marketing secretary for the company, and used to get requests for donations from everyone and their brother. Most of them she turned down, because most of them wanted to tie in to product promotions her boss didn't want to promote over the rest of the product line.

One day, the American Heart Association sent a note asking if the dairy would be interested in a flat donation. Jaz's boss said "Sure, let's send them $200." Jaz said to the boss, "Hey - what about this instead?" and the boss loved the idea and let her run the whole program herself.

The result: For each gallon of 1% milk that home delivery customers purchased during a 1-month period at a 15-cent discount off the usual retail price, the company would donate ten cents. So that was a total of a 25-cent discount, between the 15 cents to the customer and the 10 cents to the AHA.

The dairy sold more gallons of 1% milk that month than in any other month since 1% milk was first brought on the product line, and we donated almost $1000 to the AHA, instead of the $200 the boss originally suggested.

Jazuela felt VERY good about it. The boss was deliriously happy. The AHA sent the office a very heartwarming thank-you note, and everyone lived happily ever after.

What it boils down to Tyche, is this: You may eat my shorts.

The end.

[Dulan]

I don't normally chime into stuff like this anymore, Jazuela, but that is a flawed analogy.

Achaea and co are giving a flat fee up front to charity to the best of my understanding. However, with your example, the more stuff bought, the more money that goes to charity.

Don't get me wrong - I applaud Achaea for the idea of donating to Child's Play, even if I disagree with the idea of getting advertisement/promotion out of it. However, your analogy is completely different then this situation. The closest relation I can find is the name of the secretary and yourself after reading it a few times.

Which was intentional. But the analogy itself is flawed, as was mentioned earlier.

Again, I don't disagree with your intent - and to an extent, I also agree with Tyche's intent. However, this it not because of what was done. I applaud Achaea for donating to Child's Play. Rather, I dislike the original intent of donating to Child's Play. But by the same token, I like this a whole lot better then, say, pop-up ads. If the spammers/pop-up advertisers would take Achaea's lead, hey, that wouldn't be all that horrible. I'd still consider it morally bad, but not quite as bad as spammers who send out millions of emails a day .

Albeit, I completely disagree with how Tyche tried to present his point. His analogies weren't completely flawed, but they still were flawed compared to this situation. (For future reference, Tyche, Achaea isn't technically doing anything illegal. However, I believe you were implying that constitutional rape is okay in that situation. Bad analogy, as I said.)

[Brody]

Originally Posted by (Dulan @ Nov. 27 2004,14:10) I don't normally chime into stuff like this anymore, Jazuela, but that is a flawed analogy. Achaea and co are giving a flat fee up front to charity to the best of my understanding. However, with your example, the more stuff bought, the more money that goes to charity. Don't get me wrong - I applaud Achaea for the idea of donating to Child's Play, even if I disagree with the idea of getting advertisement/promotion out of it. However, your analogy is completely different then this situation. The closest relation I can find is the name of the secretary and yourself after reading it a few times. Which was intentional. But the analogy itself is flawed, as was mentioned earlier. Again, I don't disagree with your intent - and to an extent, I also agree with Tyche's intent. However, this it not because of what was done. I applaud Achaea for donating to Child's Play. Rather, I dislike the original intent of donating to Child's Play. But by the same token, I like this a whole lot better then, say, pop-up ads. If the spammers/pop-up advertisers would take Achaea's lead, hey, that wouldn't be all that horrible. I'd still consider it morally bad, but not quite as bad as spammers who send out millions of emails a day . Albeit, I completely disagree with how Tyche tried to present his point. His analogies weren't completely flawed, but they still were flawed compared to this situation. (For future reference, Tyche, Achaea isn't technically doing anything illegal. However, I believe you were implying that constitutional rape is okay in that situation. Bad analogy, as I said.)

That just goes to show about the "best of your understanding." If you bothered to visit the Child's Play site, it spells out that we're giving 5 percent of our proceeds until Christmas - not a flat fee up front. So, it's rather necessary for us to let people know about the charitable donations so that we maximize sales in order to maximize contributions to Child's Play during this period. So, the more the_logos publicizes this, the more the kids get, hopefully.

For total clarity, visit http://www.childsplaycharity.org/ and click on Partners.

Hope that clears things up.

Originally Posted by (John @ Nov. 26 2004,16:10) Your ignoring my point. My point wasn't "ignore the intent" it was "yes, they're doing this for advertising. But really, it isn't that bad." Maybe in your world perving on teenagers and getting publicity are comparable acts, but in mine they're worlds apart.

No not ignoring it, but missing it.  You asked a question about how the recipients felt, and I missed the part about what you are quoting above.  Despite it being a hypothetical there's nothing "pervy" about it.  If I gave them money and took pictures of them in Armageddon T-shirts...well now that would be perverted.  People would talk and I wouldn't want something like that getting around.  But seriously, the fraud isn't in the transaction, as it's obviously mutually beneficial.  The fraud is in me selling you on the idea that charity is about the ROI, in this case sex.  Sex, money, power, no difference to me.

Sorry I'm not all that familiar with TV game shows.  I do know that nobody ever loses on The People's Court, and I suspect it's the same with The Apprentice.  

Originally Posted by (John @ Nov. 26 2004,16:10) Then again, I can't help but wonder. What would the reaction had been to this had the_logos not been connected. Call me cynical, but I doubt it would have been like this.

Yeah I did mention that.  He isn't the only person I've flamed.  Maybe they don't really get that the free mud community is flush with altruists of many different stripes.  That's always been the problem when hobbyists and professionals mix.


PS or Note to Admin:  I changed the time in the quote.  Apparently a colon followed by a zero in the time field is interpreted as an emoticon.

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ Nov. 26 2004,16:45) What it boils down to Tyche, is this: You may eat my shorts.

That's a very tempting offer.

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ Nov. 26 2004,16:45) The end.

And just as I sensed it was the blossoming of beautiful relationship...

Originally Posted by (Dulan @ Nov. 27 2004,14:10) (For future reference, Tyche, Achaea isn't technically doing anything illegal. However, I believe you were implying that constitutional rape is okay in that situation. Bad analogy, as I said.)

I think you mean statutory rape.  No there needn't be any of that.  If you're having trouble with the legal angle, I'll tell you I do my charity work in Amsterdam.  I intended for the word "prostitution" to come to mind; followed by mental prostitution of something, prostitution of the press, the protestituion of abilities, and finally the prostitution of charity.  You are right.  I'm no Jonathan Swift. ;-)

Now amusingly, constitutional rape would be when I take your money under threat of imprisonment in order to give it to the less fortunate and then ask you to call it charity.  :-P  An interesting tangent but not really situationally related to any point I'd make save one.  And that is I do know business people who operate under the same general principle of "Not yours to give" in respect and responsibilty to shareholders and partners.  Instead opting to open their own wallets in return for nothing.   I have no criticisms of them.  That's where Achaea's Gates analogy fails, because much of what Gates and his wife do falls into that realm.  The condoms they give out to Africans don't have microsoft stamped on them.  (And yeah on many levels there's some great fodder for jokes if that they did).  But yes, it's definately possible for the officers of corporation to do charity work in a way that does not call into question their motives (at least in respect to prostituting their business as opposed to the specific charity work).  OTOH, Microsoft giving computers to schools ain't charity work.  If I recall they've been roasted in forums for that "charity" work.

Originally Posted by (Brody @ Nov. 27 2004,16:19) If you bothered to visit the Child's Play site.... maximize sales Hope that clears things up.

Here's a similar and worthy alternative -- http://www.toysfortots.org/

This charity doesn't have a secondary goal like ChildsPlay.  It's not about polishing the image of gamers and promoting the gaming industry.  Not about the Marines either.   So it's probably offtopic, but I'll run that risk.

[Eagleon]

You know, there is an edit button.

[Sinuhe]

the_logos, Nov. 24 2004,15:56

Originally Posted by *gasp* I'm so evil for tossing an idea around that turned out not to be workable. I guess the contributions you and Dulan have made to the MUDs can't be argued with though. Paragons of hope for MUDs, the two of you are. I have little doubt that soon all the world will know of the beauty of text MUDs due to your ceaseless efforts to expand the appeal of text. Way to go guys!

I cannot speak for Dulan of course.  But then again, neither can you.  Nor for me.

Because a fact is, that you don’t have a clue about what other aliases I, or he for that matter, might be using on the net, or what we might, or might not, have achieved under those other aliases.  You see, not everyone shares your habit of crowing, flexing and strutting all over the boards about everything we do that might bring some more players to our games.

Another thing is that the most interesting input on this thread came from other people than you.  People that you didn’t even have the common decency to acknowledge in that little thank-you-and-goodbye note of yours.

But since you brought the subject up, why don’t you enlighten us all about what great and unselfish deeds you have done for the text mud community yourself?  (I mean, apart from causing the rules of the voting list to be changed twice because of your ‘innovative’ methods of scrounging some extra votes for your game?  Or those equally ‘innovative’ advertisements in the past, where a number of non-existing people voted Achaea ‘the number one Mud on the net’?  Or of course that old thread where you tried to persuade all mud owners to start breaking the Diky licence?  Or that even older post on MudDev, where you were crowing happily about your new concept for get ting rich on your Mud?  Since that one was even longer ago, I cannot recall the exact wording.  But the gist of it was, that most players are so stupid and power-hungry that they’d pay almost any amount of money, if they thought that it could bring them any advantages in a game.  While this actually may hold some element of truth, I cannot help wondering if your players are aware that you hold them in this high esteem).

But, there might of course be other unselfish achievements that you have done for the mud community, which just slipped your mind, so that you forgot to mention them on the boards?  Come on, don’t be coy, enlighten us!  I am sure that your huge fan club is waiting breathlessly for some new words of wisdom from their idol.

And while he is working on that list, which will no doubt be impressive, here is another quote of his, for the rest of you, including the list Admin  to ponder.

Originally Posted by The goal here, at least insofar as we'd be involved, is to drive traffic to participating MUDs while raising the profile of text generally. We wouldn't be driving traffic to TMS or TMC. Frankly, there are too many MUDs listed on there that have poor-looking websites and we want to present the best face we can to gamers who haven't yet experienced the joy of text MUDs.

Could any of you explain to me how the text mud community in general (or any mud except those that paid to participate) would have benefited from this exclusive venture, if it wasn’t even meant to drive any traffic to the two largest existing mudlisting sites?  

And while it might be true that several of the mud listed have poor-looking websites, it is also true that quite a number have very good ones, and also very good games. But a majority of those might also be non commercial muds, and that is of course something that a commercial mud owner is not very interested in promoting, since it offers a kind of competition that he isn’t keen on. Perhaps that is why he was so eager to persuade all free mud owners to start violating the Diku licence?